Licenses and permits – RMV – Immunity

Listen to this article

Where a plaintiff filed suit seeking to hold the defendant Registrar of Motor Vehicles liable for an error in the Registry’s database indicating that the plaintiff’s registration had been revoked, we hold that the suit was barred by the Massachusetts Tort Claims Act.
Order denying defendant’s motion to dismiss reversed.
“… The central allegation is that the RMV was negligent in issuing an erroneous RMV report that [plaintiff] Robert L. Smith’s motor vehicle registration had been revoked. Smith was driving his vehicle in Pepperell on October 29, 1998, when a police officer ran an inquiry regarding the status of Smith’s motor vehicle with the RMV. The RMV database indicated that Smith’s registration had been revoked. The officer stopped Smith, and subsequently arrested and charged him with operating under the influence of alcohol (OUI) and operating with a revoked registration. On November 12, 1998, the RMV sent Smith a written apology, stating that a clerical mistake had caused the error and confirming that his registration had not been cancelled. Smith was later tried and acquitted on the OUI charge.
“Smith then brought the within lawsuit against the Registrar of Motor Vehicles, alleging that the RMV’s negligent and erroneous report of his motor vehicle’s status led to his stop and arrest, which resulted in emotional distress, lost income, loss of his right to operate a motor vehicle, and attorney’s fees. The registrar moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by G.L.c. 258, Sect. 10(e). The judge denied the motion and the registrar appealed. …
“Smith’s complaint arises from an error in the RMV database in regard to the registration of his vehicle. The language of the statutory exemption covers this claim, which is rooted in the ‘issuance, denial, suspension or revocation [of] or failure … to issue’ any license or similar authorization, such as a registration. G.L.c. 258, Sect. 10(e). The plain meaning of this statutory immunity encompasses the maintenance of records. Given the volume of persons served and records generated by RMV, Sect. 10(e) embodies a legislative determination that even lamentable clerical errors, such as the one here, should be immunized from litigation. While Smith may take issue with this legislative policy judgment, its merits are beyond our province. In short, Sect. 10(e) bars Smith from bringing a suit based upon the alleged negligence of RMV employees in failing to enter accurately his registration data into their system.”
Smith v. Registrar of Motor Vehicles (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-069-06) (5 pages) (Katzmann, J.) (Appeals Court) Motion to dismiss heard by McCann, J., in Superior Court. Stephen Dick for the defendant; Robert F. Casey Jr. for the plaintiff (Docket No. 05-P-615) (April 6, 2006).